View Single Post
Old 20-01-2013, 11:46
Muttley76
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: I wear a Stetson now...
Posts: 89,809
With respect, they are arguments that it was entirely possible to make at the time. I think many people were blinded by how good Brokeback was and therefore assumed it would win as it deserved to, ignoring the high probability of the subject-matter not being one the Academy would favour. It wasn't a shock to me that it didn't win, so I can argue that it shouldn't be seen as a shock.


i think we are going to have to agree to disagree what constitutes a shock here, because i see shock waves reverberating through the film industry and among movie goers about the result making it a shock, you see it as not a shock because you personally can rationilise why it didn't win, all we will do is go round in circles else....

I do feel Sean Penn won Best Actor for Milk as a way of proving they weren't homophobic. As I'm sure he wasn't the favourite that year.

Thing is the academy has no issues with recognising acting performances by people playing gay characters, and hasn't for several decades (indeed the year Brokeback failed to win Best Picture,Philip Seymour Hoffman won for his role as Truman Capote). So I don't agree with your reasoning here. It's probably more the point that they seem to balk at rewarding a picture with those themes with the big prize (lets not forget Ang Lee still won best director that year).

I think the year Penn won for Milk it was seen as a fairly open race. There was a feeling it might go to Rourke because he had the years big story, but Rourke, Penn, Pitt and Langella all were seen as having a shot.
Muttley76 is offline   Reply With Quote